Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
You know, Bercow's just not clubbable.
Bercow's simply a jerk.
I'm not sure if Weatherill was clubbable but he made a very good speaker and had the respect of parliament, though not of Thatcher. That was three speakers ago.
Bercow seems totally divisive, which a speaker shouldn't be.
Betty Boothroyd was widely admired, too. Bercow is not.
"We are encouraged to worry about our looks to keep buying clothes and cosmetics" is a state of affairs which has only arisen post-brexit, is it? That reads like a really embarrassingly bad schoolboy essay. Could you rig up some kind of rudimentary arse-gravy filter and run this stuff through it before rebleating it on here?
Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
I do not think Trump will be President by the end of the year.
Interesting. How do you think it will end?
For the record, I disagree. I think we have him for four years at least. Unfortunately.
Two scenarios, but the same root cause - he appears to be temperamentally unsuited for the job.
Scenario 1: Trump simply gets bored and quits.
Scenario 2: The more likely one IMO, the Republicans find they have saddled a mustang who bites and kicks and is completely uncontrollable. For their own "safety" they have to get rid of him. The Republicans would be a lot more comfortable with Mike Pence at the helm. How many more legislative disasters can they have before it really starts to make them all look utterly, utterly clueless even to their own supporters? Look at the damage Corbyn has done in a short time and he cannot hold a candle to Trump.
I do believe he has psychological issues and big ones at that. The more they try and constrict him, the more and more frustrated he will become. It is not a stable situation and it cannot persist for any great length of time, certainly not four years. Something will have to give.
As I said after the State Visit invitation, can anyone see how this ends other than Trump thinking 'screw the Brits'?
That's the karma of Brexit, we desperately need a US trade deal at the exact moment that the leadership of that country has passed to probably the most moronic individual ever to be elected to the position of President.
I would've let Trump speak in parliament. He's a first class bellend but I don't like any sort of censorship or bannings. It plays into his hands - he'll just cry foul and claim the establishment is against him.... and his supportera - great seekers of confirmation bias - will worship him even more.
Better to let these people speak and challenge them. We all saw what the oxygen of publicity did for Nick Griffin after he went on Question Time. He's seen more of us out of his left eye than we've seen of him since.
Remarkable unity on the Tory side, the whips are doing their jobs impressively well all things considered. This was the amendment I assumed had the highest chance of passing, which means this bill is now likely to go through to Third Reading and then the Lords unamended.
Does anyone think any other proposed amendment has any chance of passing after tonight's vote?
Also worth thinking longer term. The UK's interest in America is not the Rust belt states, deep South etc. Both our imports and exports are disproportionally with the blue bits of America, the coasts and the big cities.
A trade deal will apply to the whole nation not just the bits of it that voted for the President that signed the deal. We can quite happily sign a deal with Trump then sign trade deals with blue state businesses.
My point is that when there is regime change in the States, we may not want to be tainted by being too close to Trump.
I'll happily wash my hands of all Anti-Semites like the Emir of Kuwait - a nation that blocks entry from nationals of any Jewish-majority nation - that Bercow fawned over when he addressed Parliament. Will you?
I'll leave the selective virtue signalling to you, thanks anyway.
You're the one selectively virtue signalling by codemning someone attacking a hypocrite for what someone completely different said. I'm criticising the hypocrite for what he himself did.
Bercow is a hypocrite unworthy of his office. "Fashy Chippy" is a moron unworthy of leaving his mum's basement or the bridge he lives under. There we go, unashamed and consistent criticism. Shame you can't bring yourself to leave selective virtue signalling behind to be consistent.
Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
I do not think Trump will be President by the end of the year.
Interesting. How do you think it will end?
For the record, I disagree. I think we have him for four years at least. Unfortunately.
Two scenarios, but the same root cause - he appears to be temperamentally unsuited for the job.
Scenario 1: Trump simply gets bored and quits.
Scenario 2: The more likely one IMO, the Republicans find they have saddled a mustang who bites and kicks and is completely uncontrollable. For their own "safety" they have to get rid of him. The Republicans would be a lot more comfortable with Mike Pence at the helm. How many more legislative disasters can they have before it really starts to make them all look utterly, utterly clueless even to their own supporters? Look at the damage Corbyn has done in a short time and he cannot hold a candle to Trump.
I do believe he has psychological issues and big ones at that. The more they try and constrict him, the more and more frustrated he will become. It is not a stable situation and it cannot persist for any great length of time, certainly not four years. Something will have to give.
I hope you are right. It is too dangerous for the planet to have him at the helm. He really is that thin-skinned. His ego really is that fragile. It isn't an act. Terrifying.
I would've let Trump speak in parliament. He's a first class bellend but I don't like any sort of censorship or bannings. It plays into his hands - he'll just cry foul and claim the establishment is against him.... and his supportera - great seekers of confirmation bias - will worship him even more.
Better to let these people speak and challenge them. We all saw what the oxygen of publicity did for Nick Griffin after he went on Question Time. He's seen more of us out of his left eye than we've seen of him since.
Triple his vote you mean?
The BNP are dead and buried and Griffin is bankrupt.
Much of this problem may be placed at the PM's door. The unseemly haste to fall over themselves to offer a full state visit within days of Trump taking office has come home to roost. It placed the Queen in a very ugly position and offered the governments opponents boundless opportunities.
Speaker Bercow has emphasized the independence of the Commons over the executive just as in the past his predecessors did over monarchy.
The key to why this is unacceptable behaviour by Bercow is contained in your phrase "offered the government's opponents boundless opportunities."
It's up to the government's opponents to avail themselves of such opportunities. Someone who is supposed to be neutral is, or should be, by definition not one of the government's opponents.
The Speaker may be the governments opponent if he/she feels it is in the interests of the Commons. Being impartial doesn't mean not making decisions that might be not favorable to HMG.
The Speaker is somewhat like an executive judge for the Commons. Verdicts are given.
He could have given his advice in private. That would have been the action of someone who wasn't chasing public recognition
A tad difficult to give "advice in private" when asked on the floor on the House of Commons.
Also worth thinking longer term. The UK's interest in America is not the Rust belt states, deep South etc. Both our imports and exports are disproportionally with the blue bits of America, the coasts and the big cities.
A trade deal will apply to the whole nation not just the bits of it that voted for the President that signed the deal. We can quite happily sign a deal with Trump then sign trade deals with blue state businesses.
My point is that when there is regime change in the States, we may not want to be tainted by being too close to Trump.
By then it will be in the next Parliament so too late for both this one and the Article 50 negotiations. Besides Trump's successor will find us equally close to him or her and understand ours is a close relationship between nations not a love affair with Trump.
The strangest part of Bercow's pronouncement for me was the assertion that an invitation to speak to the House be 'earned'. By what metric would one judge Xi to have earned the privilege (which does not also apply to Trump) ?
I assume that was a strictly transactional thang. Trump's cashmoney value is yet to be determined.
Agreed - so how then to justify the stand on principle now ?
Trump's presidency will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
I do not think Trump will be President by the end of the year.
Interesting. How do you think it will end?
For the record, I disagree. I think we have him for four years at least. Unfortunately.
Two scenarios, but the same root cause - he appears to be temperamentally unsuited for the job.
Scenario 1: Trump simply gets bored and quits.
Scenario 2: The more likely one IMO, the Republicans find they have saddled a mustang who bites and kicks and is completely uncontrollable. For their own "safety" they have to get rid of him. The Republicans would be a lot more comfortable with Mike Pence at the helm. How many more legislative disasters can they have before it really starts to make them all look utterly, utterly clueless even to their own supporters? Look at the damage Corbyn has done in a short time and he cannot hold a candle to Trump.
I do believe he has psychological issues and big ones at that. The more they try and constrict him, the more and more frustrated he will become. It is not a stable situation and it cannot persist for any great length of time, certainly not four years. Something will have to give.
Trump is an asset to the Republicans in swing States. Not the Swing States of 2000, but the swing States of 2016.
I'll happily wash my hands of all Anti-Semites like the Emir of Kuwait - a nation that blocks entry from nationals of any Jewish-majority nation - that Bercow fawned over when he addressed Parliament. Will you?
I'll leave the selective virtue signalling to you, thanks anyway.
You're the one selectively virtue signalling by codemning someone attacking a hypocrite for what someone completely different said. I'm criticising the hypocrite for what he himself did.
Bercow is a hypocrite unworthy of his office. "Fashy Chippy" is a moron unworthy of leaving his mum's basement or the bridge he lives under. There we go, unashamed and consistent criticism. Shame you can't bring yourself to leave selective virtue signalling behind to be consistent.
Can you quote my codemning (sic)?
Sure you wrote "I'm happy to give the PB Pontius Pilates the opportunity to wash their hands of this sort of thing." While approvingly quoting a Tweet saying "Here you go @piersmorgan these are your people now. The people your comments attract. Anti-Semites."
As if there aren't morons on every side of every political divide and all over Twitter especially. Now yes I was very happy to wash my hands of all anti-semites whether they be Twitter Trolls or Leader of the Opposition or the anti-semite to whom Speaker Bercow said "Your Highness it is my privilege to welcome you here to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit. Your presence here today is a welcome reminder of the many intimate ties that exist between our nations and our peoples”
Bercow's behaviour is driven by his need to atone for once having been a leading light in the Monday Club. He's ashamed of his past views, so he overcompensates in the other direction.
You know, Bercow's just not clubbable.
You just haven't found the right blackthorn shillelagh.....
Things I never thought I would say: Well done Bercow.
Have you not left yet? I thought we were well rid of you to Ireland.
'Get outta my country.'
Charming.
She was the one saying she didn't want to stay.
I am not staying but it takes time. I only had the Estate Agent round last week to do the valuation plus I have alterations to the business first.
However what I actually said was that whether Brexit happens or not my family and I will still have the same rights as before because my children inherit my Irish citizenship, which is not quite the same as leaving on a jet plane.
I would've let Trump speak in parliament. He's a first class bellend but I don't like any sort of censorship or bannings. It plays into his hands - he'll just cry foul and claim the establishment is against him.... and his supportera - great seekers of confirmation bias - will worship him even more.
Better to let these people speak and challenge them. We all saw what the oxygen of publicity did for Nick Griffin after he went on Question Time. He's seen more of us out of his left eye than we've seen of him since.
Triple his vote you mean?
The BNP are dead and buried and Griffin is bankrupt.
But Griffin tripled the BNP's vote 6 months after his QT appearance. Whichever welcome thing shagged Nick and his merry band of Kippers to be, it wasn't the oxygen of publicity.
Trump is an asset to the Republicans in swing States. Not the Swing States of 2000, but the swing States of 2016.
Maybe so, but I do not think that will be a deciding issue. He is no longer in charge. Being President is, in many ways, far more constraining than being a CEO and he does not seem to take it well if he does not get his way in things. I cannot see how such a situation will improve over time.
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
What are the italics a quote from, just for information? I think they're correct. But of course one can't accuse Bercow of following the line of his former party, or, in my opinion, of any party. He's simply reflecting the view of most MPs. Or do you think that a majority of MPs would really like Trump to be invited to pomp and ceremony in Parliament?
Unlike presiding officers of legislatures in many other countries, the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party when taking office as well as when leaving the office. The Speaker does not take part in debate or vote (except to break ties; and even then, the convention is that the speaker casts the tie-breaking vote according to Speaker Denison's rule)
The speaker has no roll of official view on policy, he has no party affiliation, and when and if promoted to the Lords sits as a crossbencher.
What are the italics a quote from, just for information? I think they're correct. But of course one can't accuse Bercow of following the line of his former party, or, in my opinion, of any party. He's simply reflecting the view of most MPs. Or do you think that a majority of MPs would really like Trump to be invited to pomp and ceremony in Parliament?
As I understand it less than a quarter of MPs had made their views known on the subject. I have no idea what the majority of MPs what, perhaps they should have told him ?
Comments
Scenario 1: Trump simply gets bored and quits.
Scenario 2: The more likely one IMO, the Republicans find they have saddled a mustang who bites and kicks and is completely uncontrollable. For their own "safety" they have to get rid of him. The Republicans would be a lot more comfortable with Mike Pence at the helm. How many more legislative disasters can they have before it really starts to make them all look utterly, utterly clueless even to their own supporters? Look at the damage Corbyn has done in a short time and he cannot hold a candle to Trump.
I do believe he has psychological issues and big ones at that. The more they try and constrict him, the more and more frustrated he will become. It is not a stable situation and it cannot persist for any great length of time, certainly not four years. Something will have to give.
Does anyone think any other proposed amendment has any chance of passing after tonight's vote?
It isn't an act.
Terrifying.
NEW THREAD
And if he has the power re who addresses Parliament, then MPs need to realise that he can use that power.
So, when MPs elect a Speaker, they need to take account of how candidates are likely to operate in all aspects of the role - including this aspect.
As if there aren't morons on every side of every political divide and all over Twitter especially. Now yes I was very happy to wash my hands of all anti-semites whether they be Twitter Trolls or Leader of the Opposition or the anti-semite to whom Speaker Bercow said "Your Highness it is my privilege to welcome you here to our Parliament for this important stage of your state visit. Your presence here today is a welcome reminder of the many intimate ties that exist between our nations and our peoples”
Are you equally capable?
Unfortunately I'n going to have to get on it too. What the heckety-heck does Bercow thinks he's doing? His is silly behaviour, surely?
However what I actually said was that whether Brexit happens or not my family and I will still have the same rights as before because my children inherit my Irish citizenship, which is not quite the same as leaving on a jet plane.
https://twitter.com/GillTroughton/status/828600983160758272
itself quoting from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8112582.stm
As I understand it less than a quarter of MPs had made their views known on the subject. I have no idea what the majority of MPs what, perhaps they should have told him ?